It seems obvious to the author that there are interesting parallels between Curtius' narrative of the conspiracy of Bessus against Darius, and especially of Patron's role in this affair, and the Philotas affair, the most famous conspiracy, and subsequent political
trial, which took place during Alexander's expedition. In the former conspiracy Darius did not believe the informer who revealed the conspiracy among his staff, and, as a consequence, he lost his life. In the latter case Philotas did not inform the king about a conspiracy he had heard of, and Alexander only escaped danger thanks to knowledge about it which he received from another informer. The failure of Philotas to inform the king of the plot may partly be explained by his father's previous false warning of a plot by Philip the Acarnanian to poison Alexander. These parallels have so far been rather overlooked in Alexander scholarship, and the purpose of this article is to examine them. These resemblances furthermore re-open the question of which sources were available to Curtius, when reporting the last weeks of Darius III, and it is to this question we first turn.

Quintus Curtius Rufus' narrative of the last weeks of Darius III is believed to be untrustworthy in many respects. Some of the
events leading to Bessus' coup d’ état are held to be no more than literary fiction. For example the meeting of the Persian commanders at Ecbatana is considered to be one of the least plausible episodes. Modern commentator, however, make a favorable exception for the role of Patron the Phocian [1], a mercenary commander who revealed the conspiracy of Bessus and Nabarzanes to Darius, and who is sometimes supposed to be one of the authors responsible for the picture of Alexander's campaign we get from the Persian camp, one of the persons behind the so-called mercenaries’ source. It would be only reasonable to assume that Patron the Phocian plays a key role in Curtius' account because his report formed the key source utilized by that author.

THE ORGANISATION of the Macedonian army under Alexander the Great, names and functions of units, effective numbers of warriors included, are fiercely debated.[1] That Alexander’s war against Persia occupies the central place in ancient military accounts has not helped scholars reach a degree of consensus. This study likewise departs from the existing reconstructions. It shares with its predecessors a belief that the Companion and Foot Companion units of the Macedonian army were arranged by geographical or tribal origin. I am unable, however, to accept discrepancies between the numbers of cavalry and infantry units suggested by previous studies, and I prefer to look for the regular and logically explicable division of this army, similar to mathematical regularity, with which known armies of Greek poleis, and especially those of federal states, were organised.

This study represents, therefore, an attempt to view Macedonia of the last Argead kings from the perspective of a historian interested in the growth of federalism in the Greek world in the fourth century B.C. This approach should not be surprising. Recently, scholars dealing with Hellenistic Macedonia have tended to stress extensive similarities between the kingdom and the Greek federal states of the period. Of course,various scholars underscore different arguments—the existence of well-organised poleis in fourth-century Macedonia (which strengthens the resemblance between the Macedonian monarchy and Greek confederacies),[2] or the fact that ancient authors list Macedonia together with Greek federal states as members of symmachies. It has been suggested that at least in the Hellenistic age Macedonia’s rulers believed that “Macedonia should not look old-fashioned in a new period of federative boom.” [3]

Early relations between Macedonia and the Aetolian Confederacy, unlike their contacts in the Hellenistic Age, have not been often subjected to historical investigation. Inspite — or rather because — of this relative shortage of modern studies historical constructs do not agree in details. Historians dealing with a rapid growth of Macedonia during the reign of Philip II admit that Aetolia belonged to his closest allies even in the last years of the king’s reign. This friendly attitude is commonly believed to find proof in transferring Naupactus from the Achaean Confederacy to the Aetolians with help from Philip II after the battle of Chaeronea. This consensus [2], however, was disturbed by an unconventional historical reconstruction presented by A. B. Bosworth [3]. The sequence of events as presented by Bosworth was not unquestionably accepted, but still demands discussion since the person behind it is undoubtedly counted among the most influential recent historians of Alexander the Great [4].

Greek authors talking about actions by a popular assembly of Greek polis regularly use the term ekklesia while referring to this institution. This noun is often applied to the assemblies in the states in which other designations for this institution had the official character. Ekklesia became, therefore, thanks to Athenian model mainly, a generic term for "the Greek popular assembly". Today historians, however, are fully aware that at Athens ekklesia had demos as a synonym [1], so in documentary evidence as in literary works. Ancient authors sometimes retain the wording of decrees they quote, but translating the documentary style of decrees into a language comprehensible to a broader circle of readers is more common. The question how ancient Greek authors rendered state’s working, decree-passing procedures and names of acting assemblies was analysed for the polis-states, yet other forms of political organisation in Greece there is no specific study [2].

The most notable exception is the Macedonian assembly that is also the most important scholarly problem among the better researched non-polis, assemblies. This privileged situation of the Macedonian assembly does surprise, since it is the central problem in the discussion on the constitutional (or non-constitutional) character of the Macedonian monarchy [3].   

Students of antiquity usually follow Jakob Attje Otesen Larsen and believe that the notion koinon, ethnos and sympliteia were “official” or semi-official designations for Greek Leagues. [1] This view was challenged by Adalberto Giovannini, who argued that the terms klinon, ethnos, sympoliteia had no legal meaning. Consequently, Giovannini concluded that there was no difference between federal states and unitary ones in ancient Greece. [2] The most systemic and powerful defence of traditional views was presented by Frederick W. Walbank in a short study entitled “Were there Greek federal States?” [3]